Portable Presentation

Report
From Barriers to Bridges:
An ADVANCE Dialogue on Women of Color
in the Academy and Forging Cross-Racial
Alliances
Funding for this presentation was made possible through the National Science Foundation
ADVANCE Institutional Transformation grant (#0810927) awarded to Washington State
University 2008. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Science Foundation.
Welcome to Diversity 101
The Office: What Not to DO!
Overview
• The Foundation for the Conversation
• Why Should We Care?
• Defining Women of Color (WOC) and Intersectionality
• Higher Education Context for WOC
• ADVANCE Context for WOC
• ADVANCE Implementation Mentors (AIM) Network
• AIM Network WOC Allies & Partners Project
• ADVANCE Programs Specific to WOC
• AIM Network WOC Survey Results
• Interview Results
• WOC Data
• Change Agents and Allies
• Practice and Next Steps
Foundation for the Conversation
Why Should We Care?
• Scientists should reflect US racial/ethnic
demographics
• Diverse groups have higher group
performance (Phillips, Liljenquist, & Neale,
2009).
• Cultural and social determinants of health
need the attention of diverse scientists
• Technological advancements are enhanced
by diverse developers
• Race alters the experience of gender and
gender alters the experience of race
(Morris, 2007).
An Engineering Example
Why Race Matters?
• HP Face-tracking Software
Defining Women of Color (WOC)
• US historical underrepresentation in
STEM compared to US representation
(Ong, Wright, Espinosa, & Orfield, 2011).
• NSF defines WOC as African American,
Native American, and Hispanic/Latina
Women.
• Asian women are not under-represented
in STEM fields (Burrelli, 2009); however
they are underrepresented in leadership.
• Asian American and International women
differ from White Women and WOC . This
project includes data and interviews from
International and Asian American
women.
Intersectionality
“Intersectionality theory holds that modes
of inequality, such as race, gender, and
class, can combine in ways that alter the
meaning and effects of one another.”
(Morris, 2007)
• “Race alters the very meaning and impact
of gender and gender alters the very
meaning and impact of race”
Higher Education Context:
Student Diversity Pipeline
The race/ethnicity of students planning to
major in S & E has become more diverse
over time (1995; 2010):
•
•
•
•
White students planning to major in S&E declined (77% to 71%)
Asian American/Asian students increased (7% to 12%)
Hispanic students increased (5% to 13%)
American Indian/Alaska Native and black students accounted for
roughly 2% and 11%, respectively, of freshmen intending to
major in S&E in both 1995 and 2010 (NSF, 2012)
Female students:
•
white first year students (31%) expressed lower intentions to
major in S & E compared to Asian (38%), African American
(35%), Hispanic American (38%) in 2010 (NSF, 2012).
Research on WOC in STEM has focused on
undergrad women. There is a scarcity of
research on WOC graduate students or
faculty (Ong, 2010).
Higher Education:
Faculty Gender Diversity
• Women account for 21% full professors,
37% associate professors and 42% of
junior professors (NSF, 2012).
Faculty Race Diversity
• 75% of full-time faculty are
White Males (Hoopes, 2013)
• 6% of full professors in the
US are Black, Hispanic, or
Native American (NSF, 2013)
• 4% of underrepresented
minority professors are in
Research I institutions (NSF,
2013)
Exercise
• Who do you take to lunch from the
department/office?
• Who are your close friends?
• Who are your neighbors?
• Who teaches your children, addresses
your health and/or legal needs?
ADVANCE Context for WOC
AIM Network History
• Initiated: ADVANCE PI meeting (Nov.
2010)
• Target Audience: ADVANCE Program
Coordinators/Directors (i.e., IT, PAID,
Catalyst grants)
• Goal: To optimize efficiency and
effectiveness of national ADVANCE efforts
by establishing a Community of Practice yo
provide ADVANCE Program Coordinators &
Directors with:
• on-demand support
• intra-and-inter cohort mentoring
• efficient information dissemination
• best/promising practices identification
AIM Network Objectives
• Establish a listserv (Dec. 2010)
• Establish a monthly meeting (Jan. 2011)
• 2nd Tuesday of the month (8:30 PST)
• Establish a means for storing and
sharing documents (Jan. 2011)
• WEPAN Knowledge Center: AIM
Network Interest Group
AIM Network Membership
Membership
has continued
to grow over
the last 3
years…
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
86
62
52
27
January,
2011
January,
2012
January,
2013
July, 2013
AIM Network Members
AIM Network Members at the 2011 NSF Joint Annual Meeting.
WOC Allies & Partners Project
ADVANCE NSF Supplemental Grant
• Webinar (Nov. 1st, 2012)
• Op Ed Project Training (Post ADVANCE
Workshop, March 6th, 2013)
• AIM Network Website Development
(Aug. 1st, 2013)
• WOC PowerPoint
• WOC Reference List
• WOC ADVANCE Data
• Project Evaluation
WOC-Specific ADVANCE Programs
• Rutgers University (2008) ADVANCE IT:
Women of Color Scholars Program
• Syracuse (2010) ADVANCE IT
Chancellors Faculty Fellow Program
• Texas A & M (2010) ADVANCE IT:
Scholar Mentor Program
• ADVANCE HBCU Women Faculty
• University of Montana PACE
(2003)ADVANCE IT: outreach to
American Indian Women Scientists
• Indigenous Women in Science
Network
WOC-Specific ADVANCE Programs
(Continued)
• MentorNet (2010) PAID
• Purdue (2008) ADVANCE IT
• Howard University (2012) ADVANCE IT
• Jackson State University (2010) ADVANCE
IT
• RIT (2012) ADVANCE IT
• IWPR (2012) PAID
• Other?
AIM Women of Color: Survey
• 9 question survey (Mar. 20th- June 8th,
2012)
• Predominately ADVANCE IT institutions
represented
• Three main survey questions:
1. Do ADVANCE Program Coordinators/Directors
have the tools to be Allies/Advocates for WOC
STEM faculty ? (i.e. WOC data, knowledge of
barriers and factors for success for WOC,
collaborators)
2. What are ADVANCE programs offering for
WOC?
3. What ADVANCE activities do Program
Coordinators/Directors perceive are going well
(or not so well) re: WOC?
AIM WOC: Survey Results
• 45% completion rate (i.e., 17/38)
• Data collection precipitated good
discussions and provided the focus for
two AIM meetings
• ADVANCE institutional challenges
noted: WOC data not collected and/or
difficult to find data, cohort related)
WOC Survey: Question 1
What is the % of Women of Color faculty at your
institution?
100%
90%
% Institutional Responses
80%
70%
60%
53%
50%
41%
40%
30%
20%
6%
10%
0
0%
0-5%
6-10%
11-15%
0
16-20%
% Women of Color Faculty
>20%
WOC Survey: Question 2
# of Institutions
What types of activities does your ADVANCE program
offer specifically to Women of Color faculty? (please
check all that apply)*
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
8
7
4
Women-of-Color-Specific Programs
Note*: 9/17 answered this question
WOC Survey: Question 3
What do you perceive as barriers to success for Women
of Color faculty at your institution (please check all
that apply)?
Institutional Reponses
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
14
10
10
10
8
8
5
4
1
2
0
Barriers to Women of Color Faculty
WOC Survey: Question 4
What do you perceive as factors that promote success
for Women of Color faculty at your institution (please
check all that apply)?
16
Institutional Reponses
14
14
14
12
12
10
10
9
8
7
6
4
2
0
Networking
Mentoring
Retention
Efforts
Recruitment
Focus
Focus on
WOC
Cluster
Hiring
Promoting Success for Women of Color Faculty
WOC Survey: Rate Aspects of
Your Program for WOC
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Excellent
N/A
Data
Collection
12%
(2)
0%
(0)
6%
(1)
29%
(5)
47%
(8)
6%
(1)
Promoting
Success
6%
(1)
29%
(5)
24%
(4)
12%
(2)
12%
(2)
18%
(3)
Retention
Efforts
6%
(1)
29%
(5)
18%
(3)
18%
(3)
6%
(1)
24%
(4)
Enhancing
Climate
6%
(1)
23%
(4)
29%
(5)
18%
(3)
6%
(1)
18%
(3)
Recruitment
24%
(4)
35%
(6)
24%
(4)
12%
(2)
0%
(0)
6%
(1)
Different
Issues
Identified for
WOC/WW
18%
(3)
12%
(2)
47%
(8)
6%
(1)
6%
(1)
12%
(2)
WOC Survey: List Barriers For
Asian American Women
• Isolation
• Implicit Cultural Biases.
• “Model Minority” Stigma
• Classroom Challenges
• Majority ignorance of barriers faced—
unintentional biases (e.g.,
advancement ceiling).
WOC Survey: List Barriers For
International Women
• Isolation (i.e., Few women with the
same cultural issues)
• Visa Issues.
• Cross-cultural issues (i.e., language)
• Lack of models, especially in upper
levels of the academy
• Dual-culture gender biases
• Work-life balance extended outside of
the US
• Culture issues from their own country
WOC Survey: Comments
• “Our numbers are so small it’s hard to make
any comments that are of statistical
significance.”
• “Data collection is challenging. How do we
provide the few WOC we have with a voice,
while at the same time providing
confidentiality?”
• “Until we create a climate where WOC are
successful (i.e., retained, mentored, less
isolated) through active support from
majority faculty, I am ambivalent about how
much benefit WOC-specific programs will
provide.”
Interviews with WOC
• “My experience has revealed that my own
belief that I am just as capable and competent
as males, particularly white males, has
determined my career success. When I
doubted my capabilities then I was treated as
if my capabilities were inferior. However,
when I valued my capabilities and believed
that I brought to the table valuable assets,
then I was treated as if I had something of
value. My experience also reveals that there
is a culture of disrespect for those who are
different.”
Interviews with WOC
• “I believe the barriers to success for minority
women in science is the feeling of being
disconnected and the lack of appropriate role
models and mentors. For me, I still feel like I
am an outsider among fellow scientists, like I
still have to prove myself before I will be taken
seriously or be considered for opportunities
for career advancement. In science there is no
clear map to success, but for minority
scientists, particularly women, we are less
likely to even be aware of opportunities that
are available. “
Interviews with WOC
• “I believed that if I work hard my superior
will see that and make fair decisions about my
position. The truth is I need to sell myself as
competent and as an asset. ”
• “The leadership is made up primarily of
males and I think this implicitly sends the
message that females are unwanted, not
valued, or not perceived as not being as
capable as males. ”
Interviews with WOC
• “…very favorable for women at the
higher administration end, as this is an
HBCU. Within the department of
chemistry there is still the impression
that it is male-dominated and certain
underlying currents occasionally come
up (i.e., when decisions are made,
directions for department, etc.) that
suggest the male faculty on board still
think this is a male dominated field.”
Interviews with WOC
• “Minority women may have more of a
family responsibility. If our family is
relying on our paycheck then we may not
want to be considered "trouble makers" by
not accepting the disrespect and disregard
from the administration and colleagues.”
•
Other barriers experienced include the
lack of:
• Mentoring
• Resources
• Collaboration
Women of Color Faculty Data
B.S.’s Awarded to Women by
Field and Race/Ethnicity (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
10,000
9,000
30,627
8,323
7,849
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,501
4,859
4,356
4,569
3,493
4,000
3,000
2,000
634 1,295
1,000
590
323
63
0
Biology
White
Computer
Science
Asian
1,008
659
Hispanic
422
411
35
Math
Black
1,918
1,346
628
563
43
Physical
Sciences
805
77
Engineering
Native American
M.S.’s Awarded to Women by
Field and Race/Ethnicity (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
1,400
3,213
2,409
1,200
1,130
1,005
1,000
800
887
716
683
463
600
400
469
319
352
366
334
206
159
200
28
10
0
Biology
White
Computer
Science
Asian
Black
132
48 56
7
Math
Hispanic
65 65
Physical
Science
26
2
Engineering
Native American
Ph.D.’s Awarded to Women by
Field and Racial/Ethnicity (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
600
551
1955
508
500
400
385
300
172
200
174
168
147
107
84
100
15
0
Biology
White
34
11 7
39
D
Computer
Science
Asian
Black
9
8
37
D
Math
Hispanic
52
50
65
4
2
Physical
Engineering
Science
Native American
D = suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
Total S & E Faculty by Sex (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
70,000
60,400
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
31,800
27,600
16,300
18,900
14,500
10,000
0
Assistant
Associate
Male
Female
Full
S&E Faculty Rank by Sex and Race/
Ethnicity (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
Assistant
Associate
Full
White
13,000—Female
(18,100)—Male
12,300
(24,200)
12,300
(49,600)
Black
1000
(1,200)
800
(1,400)
500
(1,100)
Hispanic
1,100
(1,500)
900
(1,300)
400
(2,000)
Asian
3,400
(6,300)
2,000
(4,400)
1,100
(7,000)
<100
<100
100
<100
<100
100
Native
American
Women Assistant Professors by
Field (2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
2000
4,200
1800
1,500
1600
1400
1,100
1200
1000
700
800
700
600
500
600
400
400
200
0
200
100
200
D
*
300
*
D
Computer
Info.
Systems
*
Math
White
D=
D
200
Physics
Hispanic
D
D
D
Black
Biology
Asian
100
100
D
Engineering
Native American
suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
*= value < 50
Women Full Professors by Field
(2010)
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2010.
2000
3,700
1800
1600
1,500
1400
1200
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
300
200
200
0
D
D
D
D
Computer
Info. System
White
D
D
Math
D
100
D
100
Physics
D
100
100
Biology
D
D
D
100
D
Engineering
Hispanic
Black
Asian
Native American
D = suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
Change Agents and Allies
Advocates and Allies
• Little “a” advocate/ally; and big “A”
Advocate/Ally
• Who’s invited to the “table” and who
isn’t?
• Opportunities for Alliance Building
(Houston, 2007, AACU)
• Invisibility and Silencing
• Underestimating
• Shifting Criteria
White Women Allies
• Recognize the impact of race and
gender
• Acknowledge privilege
• Interrupt hostile behavior and microaggressions
• Are conscious about who’s at the
table and not present in the decision
making process
Women of Color Allies
Dace (2012)
• Don’t hold on to old wounds
• Be open to alliances
• Openly acknowledge and embrace
white women allies
Talking About Race
• Tim Wise: How Whites Talk About Race
(2 minutes)
“Whites are taught to think of their lives as
morally neutral, normative, and average, and
also ideal, so that when we work to benefit
others, this is seen as work which will allow
‘them’ to be more like ‘us.’”
Peggy McIntosh, White Privilege:
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
Practice and Next Steps
Think-Pair-Share Exercise
Think, discuss with partner (ideally a person
of a different race or ethnicity) & share with
the broader group:
• What stops us from having race/ intersectionality
conversations?
• How can we facilitate these conversations?
• What does racism look like in your department (or
maybe, more broadly, in the academy?)
• When recruiting faculty we are always seeking “the
best.” How is “best” defined and how is the
answer ultimately a manifestation of a privileged
majority?
• What are “action steps” for you as a change agent
and/or ally?
Recommended Readings
• Dace, K. (2012). Unlikely Allies in the Academy:
Women of Color and White Women in Conversation.
New York, NY: Routledge.
• Houston, M. (2007). Communicating as a Crosscultural Ally. AACU.
• McIntosh, P. (1988). Unpacking the Knapsack of
White Privilege.
• MIT (2010): A Report on the Initiative for Faculty
Race and Diversity.
• Ong, M. & et. al (2010): Inside the Double Bind: A
synthesis of empirical research on WOC in STEM.
• Trower, C. & Chat, R. (March-April 2002) Faculty
Diversity: Too little for too long. Harvard Magazine.
• Turner, C. (2002). Women of Color in Academe:
Living with Multiple Marginality. Journal of Higher
Education, 73 (1).
Learn about the AIM Network or
the WOC Allies & Partners Project
AIM Network/WOC Allies & Partners Project
• Gretal Leibnitz, Ph.D.
[email protected]
WOC Allies & Partners Project
• Ming Shi Trammel, Ph.D.
Formerly ADVANCE NC State University
[email protected]

similar documents